soupdragon wrote:

soupdragon wrote:

Jailhouse John wrote:

soupdragon wrote:It's not a case of being pro or anti Bates

Why do I have to be for him or against him? He's part of our club right now where I like it or not

I do however refuse to stoke up bad feeling on rumours and conjecture

I look at where we are now following some pretty bleak years and I look at where other clubs are, Man U included and I wouldn't swap places with them right now

There will always be things we feel can be done better and I hope the trust will give us the chance to influence some of those changes

Look it is not a case of for and against at all. I admire the prudent way the club is being run yet at the same time I really hate the idea that he refuses to 'grow' the business, that we support, by investing in his core product on the pitch. There is a balance but it is one he refuses to undertake. Additionally he and his CEO have over the years plainly lied to the supporters regarding his future plans for the club.

It has been said elsewhere that there have been so many 'lines in the sand' that ER looks like Filey beach!!!

I agree there are things that need clarification and I'm hoping the Trust may give us the leverage to obtain a clearer picture on the finances and future intensions.
However I don't agree with some coments made about our current squad. We clearly have one of the best squads in L1 and a squad that would hold it's own in the Championship. I know we have been lucky in a number of games this season but that is always the case, just ask Leicester supporters if they strolled through every game last season, it hardly ever happens. And I'm happy for Grayson to loan players, he's very good at it and like Gradel we get to try before we buy. And if I were in his shoes I would be keeping half an eye out for fire sales this summer with more clubs than ever in a financial mire. It's just my opinion but that's how I see it.

Should add that I think the Trust should ask members to list their biggest concerns/causes of dissatisfaction and go to the club with the approach that they (the club), will be aware of some issues that fans aren't happy with and it would be in the clubs best interests to help the trust answer those concerns by giving answers to the biggest issues.
It would then hopefully be seen as a positive approach by the Trust rather than a series of complaints.
Maybe we can submit a list of the best and worst.
So the club can see what they are getting right as well as what we think they are doing wrong.
ie If the Trust is going to have a fruitfull relationship we need to be seen as a positive influence on where the club is heading.
I know Bates is pig headed but I'm sure he can see the value in getting/keeping the fans on board.

I have mentioned to Gary that I would be interested in heading up what would essentially be a 'membership/ticketing/any other supporters concerns/liason' working group. I talk about this kind of thing to the point of tedium on WACCOE, but it's something I genuinely believe in and would like the opportunity of making all that waffle worthwhile, or at least to try.

Of course I have the reputation as a 'pro-Bates' poster but those who know me realise that most of the time it's the sheer idiocy of how some of the anti-Bates stuff comes across that induces me to play Devil's advocate.

I can run with this if it's something that would have support - not sure how it would be actually created etc, but I certainly wouldn't want it to be a solo effort. In fact when dealing with the club I think it's important that there are two people in any discussions. After all thats what Ken Bates does .

Simon at the next board meeting (february) i will be asking the directors to support the creation of this group and formally tasking you with responsibility for it following on from our conversation at the AGM but in the meantime please feel free to begin the process of establishing the issues and putting your group together

nice to see you on saturday btw, sorry we couldnt hang around longer to chat but the tube maintenance thing meant getting back to our hotel was a nightmare.

Cheers Gary.

It's OK - you weren't the only one that snubbed me. Graham Taylor walked past as well without acknowledging us

Great stuff

I think we should make sure we tell them what they get right as well as what pi88es us off

I've always said, and been slagged off for it (by some), that if you don't recognise the achievements of someone you have issues with it dilutes your arguments in relation to the things you're really bothered about.

Sometimes you even have to swallow your pride and overlook minor irritations and areas of controversy if it helps you enter into constructive dialogue. One thing's for sure. If we go in there all guns blazing it will be the first and last meeting. We might feel better for getting a few things off our chest for a while, but in the long term it will achieve nothing.

IMO

In terms of the money coming in, Quite a chunk will have been used to pay off the football creditors (and perhaps others).

The Southampton programme notes December 19th, said that the football creditors had finally been paid off, and also implied (by reference to Portsmouth) that this meant that the central sponsorship money (from the FL) would now be available to the club. Nobody seems to have mentioned this situation in relation to Thorp Arch and the councils proposals.

I think the truth is that even for the most transparent business a lot of this stuff is hard to fathom without having a lot of documentation, a great deal of time and some inside knowledge of how all the payments etc work.

One thing no-one can say about Leeds United 2007 (or whatever it's called) is that it's opaque. At best

Previous Name
LEEDS UNITED 2007 LIMITED
Date of change
06/06/2008 to
LEEDS UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED

Super Cell wrote:I think the truth is that even for the most transparent business a lot of this stuff is hard to fathom without having a lot of documentation, a great deal of time and some inside knowledge of how all the payments etc work.

Agreed, but whilst the "ownership" and certain other matters are opaque, some of the other stuff is just accounting convention.

Most businesses have start-up costs (e.g. building a factory, buying a fleet of lorries etc) which are not all written off against initial income before the business is said to be making a profit.
For example, if 5% of the start-up costs are charged in the accounts in the first year (and for 19 subsequent years), then if the business revenue exceeds this 5% plus the costs incurred in the actual running of the business in that first year, then an operating profit will be shown even though 95% of the start up costs will be allocated against/charged to subsequent years' trading.

In our case all the costs of buying the club from the administrators are start-up costs and somebody somewhere has had to put up the cash or provide the finance for 100% of it (not just the 2% of it (I think) as charged in the accounts in the profit calculation).
So if you are talking about source and application of funds (or about cashflow and where it has gone) you can see that a great deal more cash will have been spent than is shown by the operating profit calculation.

The football creditors have to be paid in full even though only 2% of the total paid to them has been charged against the first years operations. That means that 100% of what was owed to football creditors had to be found from somewhere even if only 2% of it is deducted before calculating operating profit. All of that money (i.e. 100% of it and not just 2% of it) had to be found from the cashflow of the business (or from loans or investment into the business) and paid to the football creditors either when it was due or earlier (or by some other voluntary agreement). The last accounts showed a considerable figure due to crditors within 12 months so all of that will have had to be paid (or renegotiated).
We were told that the football creditors had been paid off in December 2009 so whatever sum of money was owed to football creditors has been paid out 100% by the "new" club since the administration.

The FL/PL withhold centrally generated money (League sponsorships etc) so long as there are any unpaid football creditors following an adminmistration. Whilst this was not a secret it has been publically seen (maybe for the first time in the Press etc) at Portsmouth, though of course it applies to all other clubs as well, including ourselves.

Edited to make it easier to follow - I hope. Some of the costs incurred by the club prior to the return of the golden share are being written off over 50 years in the accounts.

Last edited by Rickd on Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

I have had some interesting and complementary reports to this post on both here and waccoe, but the responses do seem to move away from the question I was asking and can at times get too complex.

Having read the last published annual accounts I was under the impressions that our regular expected income would pay for our regular outgoings, i.e. player wages and ground rents. Ken Bates seemed to corroborate this by repeatedly stating that we budget for average gates of 22,000 and getting knocked out of each cup competition in the first round.

Everything so far seems pretty straight forward, but now it starts to get confusing (for me anyway).

For a start one of the responses (thanks Rick) seems to suggest that there will not be another annual report until 31/03/2010 or possibly 29/05/2010, which seems a bit strange as the last annual report was issued on the 11/12 2008.

I did naively imagine that being called ‘annual reports’ there would be a requirement to publish them on the same day every year, but that would appear not to be the case. If as seems probable companies have a certain amount of leeway in issuing the report, i.e. around eighteen months, then I would imagine with Bates liking for secrecy we will only see one on the last possible date every eighteen months.

I only really posted the ‘where is the money’ question because we seem to (for a league one club) have had a massive amount of luck with regard to exceptional one off incomings (estimated 20 million), but none of it appears to have gone out of the club, or to be identified in the ‘cash at bank and in hand’ figure in the last annual reports, (which only seemed to show a figure of 1 million and 90 thousand pounds).

I appreciate that a lot of the incomings will not show on the ‘cash at bank and in hand’ figure on the last published report, because most of the exceptional incomings have been after that date.

I appreciate that my estimated figure of 20 million is probably inflated by double counting the 4 million profit reported in the last annual report, i.e. most of this profit was due to the 4 million 727 thousand ‘profit on disposal of player registrations’ (transfers) mentioned in the report, which is probably the Chelsea money.

I also appreciate that we often get paid for players in instalments and may not see all of the estimated 16 million of exceptional incomings in the ‘cash at bank and in hand’ figure on the next accounts, but I would expect to see a massive jump in this figure when the next accounts are published.

The questions I really would like answering are : -

In peoples opinions have the press or my estimated figures inflated the incoming figures of around 16 million ?

Are there any outgoing figures to offset against these figures ?

Do we have any debt that could swallow up these exceptional one off incomings ?

Because of recent events and some of the responses I have received, I can begin to partly answer some of the questions myself.

We now have another full house and televised cup game (Spurs) to add to the exceptional incomings, so I really cant see it being much less than 16 million, someone (Sheppyleedsboy) has suggested we may have also received money for Danny Rose, Ben Gordon and Danny Ward, but no figure was provided.

With regard to the outgoings the last published accounts did mention a figure of 1 million and 76 thousand for player trading ???, We reportedly paid 250 thousand for Bromby, may have paid around the same for Gradel, and have had one off costs for the new scoreboard, all these outgoings may knock the balance down to around 14 million.

With regard to debt the last annual accounts did mention creditors falling due within 1 year 9 million 568 thousand, and a loan from the parent company of 2 million 5 hundred thousand.

If any accountants answer these questions, I can only ask please be as simple as you can with the response. I am only really trying to get a feel for a ballpark figure of what exceptional amounts we have had come in and have gone out or will have to go out.

The figure of 9 million and 568 thousand falling due to creditors within one year is something I would like explaining, as is the loan from the parent company of 2 and a half million, and the statement in the published accounts that we have current liabilities of £3,833,000 is confusing as this figure does not appear in any of the columns. The fifty year debt mentioned from purchasing the club is also a mystery, but if you start quoting ‘tangible and intangible fixed assets and amortisitation of player registrations, you will probably baffle me and most other posters.

I have posted the following on waccoe in answer to a response, but suspect that I may have more chance of getting an answer to some of the more technical questions on here so will copy on here :-

'I think the only answer to some of these questions is to keep looking at the published accounts and to try to make sense of them, even though there are around eleven pages of figures.

But before that I think I better state why I started this and the other thread.

I have not got an anti Bates agenda, I don’t really want to stir anything up at a time when things seem to be going well. I don’t expect Bates to publicly state how much money we have got to spend (I am sure other football clubs can count and guess better than we can so know anyway), and I would much rather talk, post, about football matters.

It is just that Bates does come with a lot of baggage, I do get suspicious when offshore companies write off eighteen million pounds, and despite the arguments about the figures, Bates has been unbelievably lucky in the windfalls that a third division club has received since administration.

With regard to the published accounts, the next set to be published will hopefully answer most of the questions I have asked, but in the mean time it would probably be useful to try and understand the previous set, and the easiest way to understand them is probably to keep reading them and ask questions on here on the items that I don’t understand, in the hope that a qualified accountant will read the post, take pity and answer my questions.

The first page seems pretty straightforward, turnover was £23,249.000, the cost of sales was £4,166.000, administration was £18,217.000 (£12,746.000 on wages), leaving an operating profit 0f £866,000

We received interest of £88,000 , had interest payable of £52,000, and had a profit on ordinary activities after taxation of £902,000.

The first mysteries seem to arrive in the player trading columns, we seem to have an outlay of £1, 076,000 on outgoing transfers, although this comes under the heading ‘Administration’ and we have a profit of £4,727.000 on disposal of player registrations, which I assume is the
‘Chelsea money.

The second page gets more interesting as we seem to have £5,735.000 owing to us (this figure includes £1,090,000 cash in bank), but owe out £9,568.000 to be paid within one year.

When I look at the notes for this £9,568.000, it states that £6,155.000 of this debt is due to accruals and deferred income ?

Does anyone know, is this figure nothing to worry about, i.e. is it just estimating next years wages and costs, or do we actually owe some other organisations £6,155.000'

Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/06/2008 (FULL)
Next Accounts Due: 31/03/2010 i.e. the last legal filing date at Companies House but the accounts would normally be made up to
30/6/2009. So trading up to 30/6/09 should be covered in these accounts. The accounts include a "report" from the directors about trading during the financial year and may mention post financial year events if these are deemed relevant.

The Annual report (form 363s) is a different document which confirms who the directors and shareholders are, where the registered office is and items like that. It is filed separately at Companies House.

bartmart wrote:
The first mysteries seem to arrive in the player trading columns, we seem to have an outlay of £1, 076,000 on outgoing transfers, although this comes under the heading ‘Administration’ and we have a profit of £4,727.000 on disposal of player registrations, which I assume is the
‘Chelsea money.

I thought this figure related to sale of Players such as Healy,Cresswell and Blake???

Just been having a look at the accounts of holding company - period ended 30 June 2008, and the 363a return.

1) Who owns Leeds United?

Leeds City Holdings Limited (05765697) owns 100% of the shares of Leeds United Football Club Limited (06233875).

The shares of Leeds City Holdings Limited are held as follows:

Forward Sports Fund - 102,000,000 shares (72.9%)
Mr D. Mannase - 10,000,000 shares (7.1%)
Outram Investments - 18,000,000 shares (12.9%)
The Homer Trust - 10,000,000 shares (7.1%)

2) How much cash have our owners put into the club (including buying it from the administrators) since administration?

The total paid for the shares in LCHL was £3,000,000, so assuming everyone paid the same price it breaks down as:

Forward Sports Fund - £2,185,714
Mr D. Mannase - £214,286
Outram Investments - £385,714
The Homer Trust - £214,286

£3m total cash received from our owners up to 30 June 2008.

3) What cash have we spent up to 30 June 2008?

liabilities settled (i.e successful bid to buy club via administration process) - £2,716k
Legal fees connected with administration process - £606k
Pre-golden share costs (player wages etc.) - £1,841k
Amount paid to administrators - £1,800k

As Rick has pointed out, only 2% of the cost of the above will be be a profit & loss account cost per year (i.e. it's amortised over 50 years). So there's a big chunk of cash, more than twice the amount invested by our owners, 98% of which has not yet been taken into account for "profit" purposes. But the cash will have been spent.


Other expenditure:

£515k on fixtures and fittings (bought during the year, not acquired from KPMG)
£2,494k alterations & improvements (new during the year, not part of the assets acquired from KPMG)
£185k Land & Buildings (again, new during the year, not part of the assets acquired from KPMG)

One other item - LUFCL has a profit before tax (excluding player trading) of £902k profit. LCHL has a consolidated (i.e. LUFCL + LCHL) loss before tax (excluding player trading) of £26k. Therefore there is expenditure of £928k in the holding company. Possibly the cost of the 15 point appeal?

So, if the owners have put in £3m, and we have quite a few 'one-off' items coming to around £10m, who is funding the company? Well, player trading generated net cash of around £1.5m, but the main item seems to be the £6m 'accruals & deferred income'. i.e. season ticket money that is for the 2008/2009 season.

So, for the question "where is the money"? It's probably funding the gap between the £6m that 08/09 season ticket holders put into the club in February 2008, and the £1m cash that was left at 30 June 2008.

Thank you very much for the info. I am not going to pretend I understand all or even most of that, but I suspect that it is only by following the published reports of the two companies you mention, and by having people with qualifications or an understanding of published accounts, patiently outline and explain the documents to the uneducated and naïve such as myself, that we can ever begin to get a glimpse of where some of 'our'money is going.